Are there people on this website who would be glad to see Israel wiped out?

AfterLife

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I was involved in the anti-apartheit movement. The comparison is not valid.

It definitely is not. You are right. The ANC did some crazy stuff the Palestinians couldn't even dream of.

Ipso

Yes, I was. And I'm appalled by what happens in the middle east from both sides.
But seriously if ever there was a group of people afflicted with sh1t leadership and leadership that is completely indifferent toward them, it's the Palestinians.
So 50 odd dead, and how far have they advanced?

annascott

I would like to see all the 'stan countries wiped out. Closely followed by Syria and Yemen.

AfterLife

alchemist33 wrote: »

Literally one sentence above the one you quoted, he said it was "atrocious"

So you think Deus is talking out both sides of his mouth and saying nothing?

AfterLife

annascott wrote: »

I would like to see all the 'stan countries wiped out. Closely followed by Syria and Yemen.

So none of the countries involved in this? Why are you posting that here?

alchemist33

AfterLife wrote: »

So you think Deus is talking out both sides of his mouth and saying nothing?

I'm saying people shouldn't misrepresent posts - nothing more, nothing less.

(I'm disgusted by Israel's current behaviour btw)

AfterLife

alchemist33 wrote: »

I'm saying people shouldn't misrepresent posts - nothing more, nothing less.

(I'm disgusted by Israel's current behaviour btw)

If you're going to say one thing in a post and then completely contradict yourself in the next sentence you leave yourself open to it.

Tigerbaby

enough talk, surely?


So

1. if you are in IT, divest yourselves of Checkpoint. There are many other options out there.

2. Check the BDS websites as to how else you financially hurt the Apartheid State.

Hit them where it matters, their money. (of prime importance)

Stop talking. Talk is easily hijacked .

Act

goose2005

Lauren Helpless Beach wrote: »

1946 is a british mandate.
1947 plan was rejected by all Arabs.
1949-67 there was no Palestine, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt / UAR.

A Dub in Glasgo

alchemist33 wrote: »

(I'm disgusted by Israel's current behaviour btw)

Current? This is what they do

Irish Praetorian

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet more typical blame shifting. Do you think its justified to counter stones and petrol bombs with lethal force such as rifle bullets? Were you appalled by Bloody Sunday in Derry?

I can only presume that everyone but the most stoic is going to respond when they have a rock hurled at them or when a Molotov is thrown at them. I mean from what footage I've managed to watch there seems to be a similar pattern, people approach the barrier and Israeli positions, hurl projectiles and continue to do so until fired upon or until tear gas is deployed (which seems sporadic. Presuming the soldiers in question cannot simply leave their posts and go home, what other kind of response is going to happen?

FTA69

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet more typical blame shifting. Do you think its justified to counter stones and petrol bombs with lethal force such as rifle bullets? Were you appalled by Bloody Sunday in Derry?

Those people protesting for their right not to be interned without trial were simply pawns of the IRA!

Bloody Sunday was a direct consequence of British policy toward Ireland and today's massacre* is a direct consequence of Israeli policy aimed at the suffocation of the Palestinian people. The people to blame here are those who did the shooting.

What do people think should Palestinians do? Not protest at the edge of their cage and simply accept the colonisation of their land?

*And today was very much a mass murder, Palestinians didn't simply "die" today as some sections of the media would have you believe , they were slaughtered.

Deusexmachina

Deleted User wrote: »

So, it's justified that Palestinians suffer because of what the Nazis did to Jews?

It’s not that simple.

Graces7

Answering the title. NO

Dyr

I tend to take the opinion that whatever the future holds it will be as a result of their own actions, so good enough for 'em. I didn't cry any tears for the South Africans or the Rhodesians either.

Atoms for Peace

annascott wrote: »

I would like to see all the 'stan countries wiped out. Closely followed by Syria and Yemen.

I wouldn't mind seeing the creation of another 'stan in Kurdistan.

Gatling

Gringo180 wrote: »

How can you not be Anti American government when they supply the likes of Israel and Saudi Arabia with the wherewithal to carry out the mass slaughter of innocent civilians?

Blame Iran , blame russia blame turkey blame the UK ,france , Germany , Switzerland ,the list goes on and on.
Blame hamas
Blame Israel
Blame life

A Pint of Goo

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I cannot believe that the Lord Mayor of Dublin has decided to be our National spokeperson on Israel. His nonsense has now made the Jerusalem Post.
Its a SONG CONTEST. What a complete idiot. Another Shinner embarrassment.

Guy's a crank, there won't be any boycott. Most people don't care about Israel and Palestine, it's just another conflict. Always makes me wonder why Irish liberals are so caught up about Palestine.

_Dara_

Mackerel and Avocado Sandwich wrote: »

I don't really care. Most Israelis I've met have lived up to certain stereotypes but I've met some nice ones too. Let's face it, if Palestine was freed and became a nation, it'd hardly be a bastion of progress and equality. It'd be another basket case Muslim state that would break into factions and start killing each other. ISIS, The Palestinian People's Front, the People's Front of Palestine, etc. etc.

Yeah. I don’t really understand the conflict but I’ve been taken aback in the past by people I’ve met who practically spit blood when you mention anyone Israeli. Like, it seems socially acceptable to some to hate every single Israeli person which seems really crazy to me.

AfterLife

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

Always makes me wonder why Irish liberals are so caught up about Palestine.

Really? Are you Irish? Did you go to school?

A Pint of Goo

AfterLife wrote: »

Really? Are you Irish? Did you go to school?

Yes and yes. Sure they are nice people but I feel no affinity towards the Palestinians.

Irish Praetorian

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I can only presume that everyone but the most stoic is going to respond when they have a rock hurled at them or when a Molotov is thrown at them. I mean from what footage I've managed to watch there seems to be a similar pattern, people approach the barrier and Israeli positions, hurl projectiles and continue to do so until fired upon or until tear gas is deployed (which seems sporadic. Presuming the soldiers in question cannot simply leave their posts and go home, what other kind of response is going to happen?

The other kind of response is non-lethal tactics surely? What happened today can’t be justified under any circumstances.

RobbingBandit

Boycott is really good

hatrickpatrick

Ipso wrote: »

No, but what the Nazis done to the Jews drives Israel's attitude to any aggression towards them. A bunch of people throwing stones or petrol bombs is not going to achieve anything. I'm sure Hammas and militant groups are aware of this but it's good optics for them to have the pawns getting mowed down.

It's totally irrelevant though. The stones and petrol bombs are being thrown because of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory. And a state expanding its border by military force in the era of the UN and International Law is simply unacceptable, even if they did it because the Lord himself appeared and ordered them to. There are literally no circumstances in which a government extending sovereignty over previously unclaimed territory by anything other than the democratic will of the people living in that territory can be considered acceptable. None.

As for Israel itself, the problem with claiming to be a democracy while also claiming to be an ethnostate is that if there are demographic shifts, the two will fundamentally come into conflict with one another. This is why Palestinian refugees are an issue and this is also a reason why Israel practises the most appalling double standards in the occupied territories - it insists that it has sovereignty over these territories, yet it explicitly discriminates on building permits, land registries etc in order to ensure that the Palestinians have an extremely difficult time acquiring or living in housing, presumably with the intention of making life so unpleasant for them that they f*ck off somewhere else. A Good Friday-esque solution could never work in Israel because it would require them to either relinquish control of all Arab-majority land, which is what they should do but what they have refused to do, or to create a state with powersharing between Arabs and Israelis, which they won't do as it would put the status of Israel as a Jewish-majority ethnostate in jeopardy.

None of this has anything to do with "aggression towards Israel". In this conflict, Israel is the aggressor. Talking about "aggression towards Israel" from the Palestinians would be like talking about "aggression towards the UK by the IRA". Nobody is going to justify terrorist actions, but the issue of who is oppressing who is abundantly clear.

Irish Praetorian

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The other kind of response is non-lethal tactics surely? What happened today can’t be justified under any circumstances.

Out of interest how exactly do you imagine that working? I mean my knowledge of less than lethal anti protest techniques is rudimentary at best, but the key seems to be having large numbers of police, letting the crowd tire itself out whilst removing troublemakers and maintaining clear exit routes. Im just a little unsure how less than lethal tactics work against a long open air border, undermanned and apparently (from the video ive seen) lacking the correct equipment.

Israel is that guy who escapes prison despite his 140 convictions, because he had a rough childhood.

Odhinn

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I was involved in the anti-apartheit movement. The comparison is not valid.

The Israel/Palestine conflict is highly complex. There is bad and good on both sides. Of course, most ordinary people are decent.

I have been to Israel a few times. Its a fascinating place. The treatment of the Palestinians by the State of Israel is atrocious. But the Israelis are surrounded by hostile neighbours who want to annihilate them - and no-one came to their aid the lsst time that happened to them as a race (in the holocaust). So, it's complex and there are many agendas.

Childish gestures like calling for a boycott of a song contest help absolutely no-one and make us sound petty, ignorant and belligerent.

And again, thats what was trotted out against the boycott of Apartheid South Africa. The conflict is a matter of a state illegally expanding outsides its borders - thats not complex.

hatrickpatrick

goose2005 wrote: »

1946 is a british mandate.
1947 plan was rejected by all Arabs.
1949-67 there was no Palestine, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt / UAR.

You're right, it would make more sense to say "Arab land" rather than "Palestine" in that map. However, on the 1947 point, if all Irish people had rejected partition of Ireland, do you think it would therefore have been ok for the Unionists to just take the entire island in response? Because that's essentially what happened in Israel/Palestine. Partition always leads to civil war, it's one of the most moronic historical blunders of the British Empire, but that doesn't justify one side taking the entire partition area by force afterwards. If that had happened in Ireland, either the Free State forcefully occupying Northern Ireland or the Unionists forcefully occupying the Free State, we would have had bloodshed and heartbreak many orders of magnitude worse than the horrors of The Troubles until the situation was somehow resolved.

goose2005

_Dara_ wrote: »

Yeah. I don’t really understand the conflict but I’ve been taken aback in the past by people I’ve met who practically spit blood when you mention anyone Israeli. Like, it seems socially acceptable to some to hate every single Israeli person which seems really crazy to me.

and it is interested how exercised they get when a few dozen are killed by Israelis. The Yemen war has killed 10,000 and displaced three million but for some reason it doesn't inspire the same passion.

You're right, it would make more sense to say "Arab land" rather than "Palestine" in that map. However, on the 1947 point, if all Irish people had rejected partition of Ireland, do you think it would therefore have been ok for the Unionists to just take the entire island in response? Because that's essentially what happened in Israel/Palestine.

Not really, given that there are tons of other Arab countries. Arabs have been brutal imperialists for 1,400 years, it's a bit silly for them to play the victim

AfterLife

goose2005 wrote: »

Not really, given that there are tons of other Arab countries. Arabs have been brutal imperialists for 1,400 years, it's a bit silly for them to play the victim

So it would have been fine for the unionists to expel all the catholics to Spain or Italy because there are tons of Catholic countries?